EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  <20072008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  <20072008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: RE: lexical analyzer for .db?
From: "Owens, PH \(Peter\)" <[email protected]>
To: "Heinrich du Toit" <[email protected]>, "EPICS tech-talk" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:35:39 -0000
If you were going to do it that way you could use the PHAS
field to ensure that the calc records were processed later
in the scan than the inputs - thus processed up-to-date values.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Heinrich du Toit
> Sent: 02 November 2007 14:02
> To: Eric Norum; EPICS tech-talk
> Subject: Re: lexical analyzer for .db?
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> Thanks for all your help
> 
> Wonder why the FLNK isn't a direct DB link then if possible? (e.g. 
> record inside same IOC)
> Does the fanout do it differently?
> 
> What would you say about the idea of just putting all the 
> inputs on SCAN 
> = .2 second
> and then all the calc(out) rule records also on .2seconds SCAN ?
> 
> The way I see it a calc record can then never work with a value older 
> than .4 seconds... which is fine for the system I think.
> 
> Can maybe just FLNK or fanout the critical stuff then
> 
> -H
> 
> 
> Eric Norum wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Ned Arnold wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> You may be able to eliminate the fanout records by careful 
> design of 
> >> forward links and/or input link flags (PP, CP, etc).
> >>
> >> For example, if the input record's forward link field 
> referenced the 
> >> calc record and the calc record's forward link field 
> referenced the 
> >> calcout record, all would process each time the input record 
> >> processed ... without a fanout.
> >>
> >
> > Don't take this technique to extremes, though.  I recall 
> helping Steve 
> > Shoaf diagnose problems with his database for a video switching 
> > system.  The database contained 128 records FLNK'd together.  This 
> > caused very weird IOC faults that we finally realized were 
> caused by 
> > stack overflow of the task processing the records -- 128 recursive 
> > calls to the record processing routine forced the task 
> stack pointer 
> > past the end of the stack space.
> > --Eric Norum <[email protected]>
> > Advanced Photon Source
> > Argonne National Laboratory
> > (630) 252-4793
> >
> >
> 
> 


References:
Re: lexical analyzer for .db? Heinrich du Toit

Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: lexical analyzer for .db? Heinrich du Toit
Next: Re: lexical analyzer for .db? Emmanuel Mayssat
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  <20072008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: lexical analyzer for .db? Heinrich du Toit
Next: Re: lexical analyzer for .db? Ralph Lange
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  <20072008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 10 Nov 2011 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·